free-range politics, organic community

DNC Tyranny Strikes Again: Rapes Tulsi Gabbard

I'm sure most people here are no strangers to the realization that the DNC is an abusive, anti-democratic, tyrannical, Establishment organization that has its head up its own orifice (that is, when it isn't busy burying its nose way up that of the crooked Clintons).

Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has met and exceeded the stated qualifying criteria necessary to participate in the 3rd and 4th Democratic Party debates by any objective measurement -- by having over 165,000 independent donors, and by polling over 2% in 26 separate polls -- including those in early Primary States such as New Hampshire and South Carolina.

But according to the DNC there are "qualifying polls" and non-qualifying polls -- to which they, and they alone, are the sole determinant and arbitrator of.

Thus by the authority of the DNC (and not the actual voters themselves) she only has just two "qualifying polls" (less than the 4 threshold number) -- all those 24 other independent polls do not count - and no explanation is given (or needed apparently) as to why.

So they will declare her unfit, and deem her to be excluded from the Debate Stage, as they seek to drive the only Anti-War, Pro-American, Anti-Globalist, progressive candidate out of the race (who also attracts support from both the left and the right, and has the distinction of being the most Google-Searched Democratic candidate following both of the earlier Democratic Debates).

This outrage tells you everything about how the process of running for President in this Country is totally controlled like .. i dunno an Iron Curtain. Anti-War, Anti-Establishment candidates must be made invisible by any means necessary (no matter how much of the entire process is exposed as a total farce to accomplish that end).

Not much in the Media about this (of course), just this one quick piece below:

--

Jimmy Dore helps to illustrate just how totally arbitrary and absurdly unfair this is -- not just to Tulsi Gabbard, but unfair for the American public trying to evaluate their potential voting options and take control of their future.

Run as an Independent candidate (but how does she get on the State ballots?)

Sue the DNC?

I'm not sure what the most effective strategy is. This is an open discussion. But this whole process needs to be publicly discredited and shown for the tyranny and political repression that it is. The DNC is the enemy of the people.

I don't have that much faith in Bernie anymore. His full-throated support for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and rejection of Jill Stein -- along with him giving multiple Clinton corruptions and scandals a complete pass (nothing to see folks), and covering up the DNC's efforts to defeat his own campaign -- turned him into a hypocrite, and a false messenger. You can't talk about the need for "Revolution", and then run straight into the arms of the Establishment -- kissing their feet and protecting them.

Meanwhile Sanders has bought lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?) while he complains about the lifestyles of the rich, and has become preoccupied with useless "Identity Politics" divisiveness, boring, mindless Racism/White-Supremacist/Homophobe narratives, and the dishonest Russia-gate fear mongering (created by the Deep State). It is hard to take Sanders seriously anymore.

Tulsi Gabbard was different. She wasn't playing into any of the false divisions, and the false narratives. She never wasted a moment on "Impeachment", or chasing phony Deep-State setups. She knows what is real, and what is not real.

But as Jimmy Dore pointed out in the Video, Bernie Sanders now won't even come to the defense of Tulsi Gabbard, even though she put her neck on the line for him (back in 2016). Instead Sanders covers up for the likes of the crooked Clintons. That tells you something about Sanders real character. I'm no longer impressed with him.

Tulsi Gabbard or bust for me.

I've long liked Tulsi's courage, contributed a few bucks to get her on the debate stage, and have faith she will do what's right when the time comes.

. . . has written some really great articles opposed to identity politics. You might consider googling them. I don't think Bernie is at all a proponent of the primacy of identity politics. He is constantly being criticized by IdPol proponents for placing an overriding emphasis on class.

While his takes on Russia are a bit off kilter, misguided and unwise in my estimation, I would not call them "fear mongering."

I wound up voting Green in 2016. Bernie lived to run another day by doing what he did. Most of his supporters have forgiven him or haven't given it a second thought. But if his endorsing her bothers you that much, it's certainly your right to object to it. For me, his campaigning alone has made socialism an issue. That's something in and of itself and pretty, pretty dang good in my estimation.

And whatever will you do if Tulsi endorses Bernie? Consign her to the depths of hell for evermore? And what if she endorses WARren or Biden et al or gawdforbid Hillary? Aside from Bernie, I don't think any of the other candidates would want her campaigning for them. If Bernie gets nominated, I hope she's ensured of a prominent spot in his administration.

I don't have that much faith in Bernie anymore. His full-throated support for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and rejection of Jill Stein -- along with him giving multiple Clinton corruptions and scandals a complete pass (nothing to see folks), and covering up the DNC's efforts to defeat his own campaign -- turned him into a hypocrite, and a false messenger. You can't talk about the need for "Revolution", and then run straight into the arms of the Establishment -- kissing their feet and protecting them.

Meanwhile Sanders has bought lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?) while he complains about the lifestyles of the rich, and has become preoccupied with useless "Identity Politics" divisiveness, boring, mindless Racism/White-Supremacist/Homophobe narratives, and the dishonest Russia-gate fear mongering (created by the Deep State). It is hard to take Sanders seriously anymore.

Tulsi Gabbard was different. She wasn't playing into any of the false divisions, and the false narratives. She never wasted a moment on "Impeachment", or chasing phony Deep-State setups. She knows what is real, and what is not real.

But as Jimmy Dore pointed out in the Video, Bernie Sanders now won't even come to the defense of Tulsi Gabbard, even though she put her neck on the line for him (back in 2016). Instead Sanders covers up for the likes of the crooked Clintons. That tells you something about Sanders real character. I'm no longer impressed with him.

She might be able to turn a negative (DNC) into a positive and exploit the situation. She could do some Internet events, and Tucker Carlson would put her on TV again, and she might be able to create some public outrage, build some momentum .. and force, by public sentiment, to allow her back in some later Debates.

And if she supports Bernie, Bernie might just ignore or dismiss it. I don't think he has any real loyalty to her.

. . . has written some really great articles opposed to identity politics. You might consider googling them. I don't think Bernie is at all a proponent of the primacy of identity politics. He is constantly being criticized by IdPol proponents for placing an overriding emphasis on class.

While his takes on Russia are a bit off kilter, misguided and unwise in my estimation, I would not call them "fear mongering."

I wound up voting Green in 2016. Bernie lived to run another day by doing what he did. Most of his supporters have forgiven him or haven't given it a second thought. But if his endorsing her bothers you that much, it's certainly your right to object to it. For me, his campaigning alone has made socialism an issue. That's something in and of itself and pretty, pretty dang good in my estimation.

And whatever will you do if Tulsi endorses Bernie? Consign her to the depths of hell for evermore? And what if she endorses WARren or Biden et al or gawdforbid Hillary? Aside from Bernie, I don't think any of the other candidates would want her campaigning for them. If Bernie gets nominated, I hope she's ensured of a prominent spot in his administration.

Tulsi is a uniquely courageous person and a wonderful presidential candidate. If there was ranked voting, she'd definitely be my #2. Aside from Bernie, she's the only presidential candidate for whom I'd even consider voting.

I'm not going to suggest she drop out but if she does, I hope she endorses Bernie.

If Bernie is the nominee, I'm sure she will endorse him, just as I'm pretty darn sure she will endorse any other nominee given that she signed off on exactly that to become a candidate herself.

I'd say I hope you don't give up on her come those circumstances, but if it gets to that point, I'm giving up on politics period.

She might be able to turn a negative (DNC) into a positive and exploit the situation. She could do some Internet events, and Tucker Carlson would put her on TV again, and she might be able to create some public outrage, build some momentum .. and force, by public sentiment, to allow her back in some later Debates.

And if she supports Bernie, Bernie might just ignore or dismiss it. I don't think he has any real loyalty to her.

Meanwhile Sanders has bought several lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?)

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Bernie and Jane bought one (repeat one) vacation property situated on the shore of Lake Champlain. They bought it before 2016, using money Jane inherited from her parents. The purchase price was around $600K, if I recall, which is pretty darn cheap for a vacation home. I've seen pictures of it. It's far from "lavish". Looks more like a middle-class vacation cabin.

You know, there are arguments you could make about Bernie that would be worth discussion. His dropping out of the race before Philly, for instance. This crap about "Bernie's rich, he owns a lot of fancy houses and flaunts his ill-gotten wealth" isn't one of them.

I don't have that much faith in Bernie anymore. His full-throated support for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and rejection of Jill Stein -- along with him giving multiple Clinton corruptions and scandals a complete pass (nothing to see folks), and covering up the DNC's efforts to defeat his own campaign -- turned him into a hypocrite, and a false messenger. You can't talk about the need for "Revolution", and then run straight into the arms of the Establishment -- kissing their feet and protecting them.

Meanwhile Sanders has bought lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?) while he complains about the lifestyles of the rich, and has become preoccupied with useless "Identity Politics" divisiveness, boring, mindless Racism/White-Supremacist/Homophobe narratives, and the dishonest Russia-gate fear mongering (created by the Deep State). It is hard to take Sanders seriously anymore.

Tulsi Gabbard was different. She wasn't playing into any of the false divisions, and the false narratives. She never wasted a moment on "Impeachment", or chasing phony Deep-State setups. She knows what is real, and what is not real.

But as Jimmy Dore pointed out in the Video, Bernie Sanders now won't even come to the defense of Tulsi Gabbard, even though she put her neck on the line for him (back in 2016). Instead Sanders covers up for the likes of the crooked Clintons. That tells you something about Sanders real character. I'm no longer impressed with him.

Tulsi Gabbard or bust for me.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep." ~Rumi

Meanwhile Sanders has bought several lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?)

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Bernie and Jane bought one (repeat one) vacation property situated on the shore of Lake Champlain. They bought it before 2016, using money Jane inherited from her parents. The purchase price was around $600K, if I recall, which is pretty darn cheap for a vacation home. I've seen pictures of it. It's far from "lavish". Looks more like a middle-class vacation cabin.

You know, there are arguments you could make about Bernie that would be worth discussion. His dropping out of the race before Philly, for instance. This crap about "Bernie's rich, he owns a lot of fancy houses and flaunts his ill-gotten wealth" isn't one of them.

I remember seeing that "rich Bernie in his red Audi" meme going around on Facebook, back during the 2016 primary season. It was at the same time the memes about "rich Bernie and his fancy homes" were being spread. It was all quickly and continuously debunked as soon as it popped up.

Edited to add: You are not doing Tulsi's campaign any favors by resurrecting those old ridiculous memes.

The claim that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders spent campaign donations on a sports car worth $172,000 wasn’t based on any factual information or documented evidence, but instead on nothing more than a blurry photograph of a man who bore a passing resemblance to the Democratic presidential candidate driving a car that looked like it might have been an expensive Audi R8, in an area that didn’t look anything like Arizona on a day when Sanders was stumping in that state.

The claim that presidential candidate Bernie Sanders spent campaign donations on a sports car worth $172,000 wasn’t based on any factual information or documented evidence, but instead on nothing more than a blurry photograph of a man who bore a passing resemblance to the Democratic presidential candidate driving a car that looked like it might have been an expensive Audi R8, in an area that didn’t look anything like Arizona on a day when Sanders was stumping in that state.

Meanwhile Sanders has bought several lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?)

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Bernie and Jane bought one (repeat one) vacation property situated on the shore of Lake Champlain. They bought it before 2016, using money Jane inherited from her parents. The purchase price was around $600K, if I recall, which is pretty darn cheap for a vacation home. I've seen pictures of it. It's far from "lavish". Looks more like a middle-class vacation cabin.

You know, there are arguments you could make about Bernie that would be worth discussion. His dropping out of the race before Philly, for instance. This crap about "Bernie's rich, he owns a lot of fancy houses and flaunts his ill-gotten wealth" isn't one of them.

@FreeSociety
How many is several? Three to seven? Can you supply reference?

Meanwhile Sanders has bought several lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?)

What has long been public info is that the one most recent 'lake house' Bernie got was mostly from inherited money from sale of Jane's mothers house when she passed away. Or as you put it, his payoff. Please.

I don't have that much faith in Bernie anymore. His full-throated support for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and rejection of Jill Stein -- along with him giving multiple Clinton corruptions and scandals a complete pass (nothing to see folks), and covering up the DNC's efforts to defeat his own campaign -- turned him into a hypocrite, and a false messenger. You can't talk about the need for "Revolution", and then run straight into the arms of the Establishment -- kissing their feet and protecting them.

Meanwhile Sanders has bought lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?) while he complains about the lifestyles of the rich, and has become preoccupied with useless "Identity Politics" divisiveness, boring, mindless Racism/White-Supremacist/Homophobe narratives, and the dishonest Russia-gate fear mongering (created by the Deep State). It is hard to take Sanders seriously anymore.

Tulsi Gabbard was different. She wasn't playing into any of the false divisions, and the false narratives. She never wasted a moment on "Impeachment", or chasing phony Deep-State setups. She knows what is real, and what is not real.

But as Jimmy Dore pointed out in the Video, Bernie Sanders now won't even come to the defense of Tulsi Gabbard, even though she put her neck on the line for him (back in 2016). Instead Sanders covers up for the likes of the crooked Clintons. That tells you something about Sanders real character. I'm no longer impressed with him.

Tulsi Gabbard or bust for me.

up

0 users have voted.

—

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein

@FreeSociety
It's a camp. And even by Vermont standards, it's not "lavish."

I'm not one to defend Bernie's willing betrayal to participate in Establishment politics, despite what he'd evangelized to the contrary. But this whole thing about his lavish lake house is nonsense -- a talking point disseminated and perpetuated even among local progressive media here that should know better.

Bernie does his own shopping at Hannaford's. At least the last time I saw him, he was still driving a beater car. He lives in a part of town known for its "affordability" (I use that term loosely because it's all relative in Burlington, which is impossibly expensive). He eats at Denny's, ferchrissakes.

Yet people want to get bent all out of shape over the fact that he was able to purchase a $600K property in the Champlain Islands at the age of 70-whatever.

This bugs the shit out of me. If you're going to criticize Bernie -- and believe me, he deserves it -- do it on the grounds that he fully embraced Russiagate, willingly or otherwise, to maintain the very much NOT anti-establishment status quo.

I don't have that much faith in Bernie anymore. His full-throated support for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and rejection of Jill Stein -- along with him giving multiple Clinton corruptions and scandals a complete pass (nothing to see folks), and covering up the DNC's efforts to defeat his own campaign -- turned him into a hypocrite, and a false messenger. You can't talk about the need for "Revolution", and then run straight into the arms of the Establishment -- kissing their feet and protecting them.

Meanwhile Sanders has bought lavish Lake Houses in Vermont (as his payoff?) while he complains about the lifestyles of the rich, and has become preoccupied with useless "Identity Politics" divisiveness, boring, mindless Racism/White-Supremacist/Homophobe narratives, and the dishonest Russia-gate fear mongering (created by the Deep State). It is hard to take Sanders seriously anymore.

Tulsi Gabbard was different. She wasn't playing into any of the false divisions, and the false narratives. She never wasted a moment on "Impeachment", or chasing phony Deep-State setups. She knows what is real, and what is not real.

But as Jimmy Dore pointed out in the Video, Bernie Sanders now won't even come to the defense of Tulsi Gabbard, even though she put her neck on the line for him (back in 2016). Instead Sanders covers up for the likes of the crooked Clintons. That tells you something about Sanders real character. I'm no longer impressed with him.

Tulsi's in it for the long haul. I don't think she expects to become POTUS this time around. At present, she seems to be positioning herself, making herself known to the public, building a base of support, and no doubt exploring alliances. I'm looking forward to seeing what she does. Warrior Tulsi.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep." ~Rumi

@Centaurea
in my humble opinion. There are a couple of things to note here. The main thing that spurs Tulsi to run is not for being the first anything or for self glorification. Her campaign is based upon her own strong beliefs against regime change wars, using those monies here in the US to help the people, and her belief in environmental stewardship.

Whether or not people like or support Tulsi Gabbard, no one can question her courage to go against the MIC and other powers that be. She is not ready to quit yet. I have felt from the beginning that Tulsi is running now for the future. My personal belief is that she will be a great President due to her courage, intelligence and leadership skills. I am hoping that if Bernie becomes President, he will appoint Tulsi as Secretary of State where her skills will be very valuable.

Yeah, I can dream, but if you are going to dream, dream big.

Tulsi's in it for the long haul. I don't think she expects to become POTUS this time around. At present, she seems to be positioning herself, making herself known to the public, building a base of support, and no doubt exploring alliances. I'm looking forward to seeing what she does. Warrior Tulsi.

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

#3 in my humble opinion. There are a couple of things to note here. The main thing that spurs Tulsi to run is not for being the first anything or for self glorification. Her campaign is based upon her own strong beliefs against regime change wars, using those monies here in the US to help the people, and her belief in environmental stewardship.

Whether or not people like or support Tulsi Gabbard, no one can question her courage to go against the MIC and other powers that be. She is not ready to quit yet. I have felt from the beginning that Tulsi is running now for the future. My personal belief is that she will be a great President due to her courage, intelligence and leadership skills. I am hoping that if Bernie becomes President, he will appoint Tulsi as Secretary of State where her skills will be very valuable.

Yeah, I can dream, but if you are going to dream, dream big.

up

0 users have voted.

—

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
Albert Einstein

The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it’s quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.

That is Gabbard’s crime. And it’s the only crime that matters.

When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy.

Foreign policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise.

Every word of that is so true it makes me want to weep. I don't cry easily.

that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:

Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only candidate with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders and asked point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders from being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the surprise of the activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to the contract they were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.

The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems that the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California Democratic Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day. Party hack Tom Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.

a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party

Yet a loss by Hillary isn't blamed on centrists but is, instead, somehow, used to McGovern or kill....

that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:

Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only candidate with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders and asked point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders from being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the surprise of the activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to the contract they were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.

The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems that the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California Democratic Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day. Party hack Tom Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.

@Nastarana
I went to opendemocracy.net and couldn’t find this content.

that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:

Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only candidate with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders and asked point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders from being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the surprise of the activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to the contract they were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.

The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems that the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California Democratic Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day. Party hack Tom Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.

I read this on way of the bern last night and I think it should go viral to show people how badly they are rigging the primary again. If they can just do what they want and all candidates know about it what then?

@Nastarana
Do you have a link? I could not find opendemocracy.com and opendemocracy.net didn't seem to have what you referred to.

that the DNC would rather lose with a "centrist" than win with Bernie or Tulsi:

Bernie activists who have reportedly learned that the DNC plans to go after him, once Tulsi was out of the way, chose not to take things lying down. Tulsi is the only candidate with a history of having Bernie's back. Several activists went to party leaders and asked point blank whether blocking popular candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders from being nominated would be worth a second term for Donald Trump. To the surprise of the activists, leaders spoken to were clear that holding Bernie and Tulsi to the contract they were forced to sign before the first debate was more important than fairness and beating Donald Trump. Some leaders talked about which candidates they planned run in 2024 if Trump was re-elected. An assistant to one of the party bosses, who asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, pointed out that the DNC actually makes more money as a result of anger about Donald Trump's Presidency than they would if a popular progressive, such as Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, became President. One person pointed out that a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.

The report is at open democracy.com and is worth reading in its' entirety. It seems that the Democrats scheduled a meeting of the DNC in SF and meetings of the California Democratic Party in San Jose (abt. 2-3hrs. away, best is to ride the BART) the same day. Party hack Tom Perez drew about 100 to his speech at the DNC.

a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.

So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal Hillary.

@Nastarana
Harris has been plunging in the polls. I think Tulsi finished her off.

Why would any nominee want to have an unpopular pol on the ticket? Not much of a chance of that, so no need to worry about any Harris presence on the ticket or threat in any way.

As for the DNC possibly preferring Trump b/c it leads to better fundraising, the RNC is currently outraising the DNC by 2-to-1. Apparently Ds just aren't that angry. Or are channeling their anger in other ways.

One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that:

a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.

So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal Hillary.

Tulsi did finish her off, but the DNC is trying to prop her back up again by removing Tulsi from the picture.

I don't think Bernie is principled enough, or bold enough (based on his handling of 2016 and the Clintons/DNC) to ever select Tulsi Gabbard as his V.P.

But I do see him selecting someone (corrupt) like K. Harris just to check-off the "woman box". So Harris may have life after all due to the DNC rigging of things.

#7 Harris has been plunging in the polls. I think Tulsi finished her off.

Why would any nominee want to have an unpopular pol on the ticket? Not much of a chance of that, so no need to worry about any Harris presence on the ticket or threat in any way.

As for the DNC possibly preferring Trump b/c it leads to better fundraising, the RNC is currently outraising the DNC by 2-to-1. Apparently Ds just aren't that angry. Or are channeling their anger in other ways.

@FreeSociety
if it was a conscious one re Tulsi had nothing to do with Harris. They didn't want her anti-regime change message getting heard. Bad for business, bad for their corporate owners and sponsors. Harris had nothing to do with it.

Long ways to go yet until IA, but it would be a rare occurrence if a candidate like Harris, once riding high in the polls then seeing her support plummet should then mount a dramatic comeback. I wouldn't bet a lot on her coming back from the dead or near-dead.

Meanwhile Liz appears to be an acceptable backup for the MSM, judging by their mostly favorable coverage. Someone who could best Bernie and keep the too-lefty radical guy out of the WH>

But his obvious pick wouldn't be a nonentity just to check that box in a Hail Mary move, but someone of substance as with the upward trending Warren, much closer to him ideologically, especially on the key issue of M4A, as opposed to the declining prosecutor Harris who is trying to weasel out of any meaningful M4A promises.

#7.1.1 To be clear, I no longer support him, a fact that's well documented in the annals of this site.

But to suggest that he'd choose (h/t to AE) someone like The Camel to check "the woman" box displays a complete lack of understanding about who he is, fundamentally.

But his obvious pick wouldn't be a nonentity just to check that box in a Hail Mary move, but someone of substance as with the upward trending Warren, much closer to him ideologically, especially on the key issue of M4A, as opposed to the declining prosecutor Harris who is trying to weasel out of any meaningful M4A promises.

@WaterLily
but it's probably a very tiny minority (and highly cynical) view. Most folks, including probably the Bernmeister himself, would perceive Liz as ideologically close, or reasonably in the same ball park playing the same sport, as compared with Harris (playing in a nearby ball park) or Klobuchar (playing a different game in a distant ball park on the other side of town).

I think Bernie/Liz is the natural team. And if something were to happen to Bernie, Liz would get you 80% of Bernie, so a good pick for insurance purposes.

@wokkamile
Warren and Harris and Klobuchar and everyone else may use different words to describe the game, but they're still sitting in the same ballpark.

#7.1.1.2.1.1 but it's probably a very tiny minority (and highly cynical) view. Most folks, including probably the Bernmeister himself, would perceive Liz as ideologically close, or reasonably in the same ball park playing the same sport, as compared with Harris (playing in a nearby ball park) or Klobuchar (playing a different game in a distant ball park on the other side of town).

I think Bernie/Liz is the natural team. And if something were to happen to Bernie, Liz would get you 80% of Bernie, so a good pick for insurance purposes.

Some guy said that he heard this and he told someone who told me . . . .

One person, a DNC official to be precise, pointed out that:

a ticket with Warren and Harris would be labeled progressive and the expected loss would be used to McGovern or kill the progressive movement within the party.

So, there we have it. The war mongering neo cons and neo liberals are welcome in the Democratic (sic) Party, but us peace loving, non-imperialist progressives are not. Which explains, among a lot of more important things, why a pushy Dem. operative thinks she can come to my house without notice or invitation and insult me because I don't like her gal Hillary.

tossed out the suit against the DNC filed by Jared Beck, Elizabeth Beck, and Niko House, the DNC doesn't have single worry about how they conduct their political business. The declined prosecution against the DNC established the DNC's legal rights to make whatever decisions they want in smoke-filled rooms. There should be no doubt the DNC gets what Killary wants. This is why H. Rodent Clinton enters the race, erupting with all the subtlety of lava flowing down the slopes of Mauna Loa (or Karatoa, etc.)

tossed out the suit against the DNC filed by Jared Beck, Elizabeth Beck, and Niko House, the DNC doesn't have single worry about how they conduct their political business. The declined prosecution against the DNC established the DNC's legal rights to make whatever decisions they want in smoke-filled rooms. There should be no doubt the DNC gets what Killary wants. This is why H. Rodent Clinton enters the race, erupting with all the subtlety of lava flowing down the slopes of Mauna Loa (or Karatoa, etc.)

Apologies to all. I am afraid I am one of Those, internet challenged Boomers. Which is why I will never vote for either T-Rump or Biden to accidently hit the wrong button and bring on mutually assured destruction.

Apologies to all. I am afraid I am one of Those, internet challenged Boomers. Which is why I will never vote for either T-Rump or Biden to accidently hit the wrong button and bring on mutually assured destruction.

I'm familiar with Kall who seems legit but that article and Henry Samson, not so much. But like you noted, no vetting. That, unfortunately, seems to be becoming the standard with way too many online publications.

The Guardian published an excellent article by Bernie just yesterday: "The media has become gossip, clickbait and punditry: This threatens democracy"

7 polls that were supposed to be qualifying have not and are not going to be taken.
Seems to me, the DNC needs to include 7 of the polls that were taken, which would put Tulsi in.
but they won't. There's a reason they only took 10 of the 17 polls. It's rigged again.

This is a direct, intentional Fixing of the race, and robbing the American Voters by taking the decision away from them in advance.

7 polls that were supposed to be qualifying have not and are not going to be taken.
Seems to me, the DNC needs to include 7 of the polls that were taken, which would put Tulsi in.
but they won't. There's a reason they only took 10 of the 17 polls. It's rigged again.

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Rigging, gaming the system, similar less inflammatory terms would have been sufficient.

And a few other candidates were excluded too. It was the camp of Michael Bennett which wrote the most effective rebuttal to the DNC's arbitrary, non-transparent rules on polls.

On a brighter note: what I learned today is Tulsi is unlikely to quit the race now. This is b/c there is an October debate to be held (date TBD) where she could still qualify -- same qualifying criteria apply, and she's already met the donor threshold. She will be allowed to roll over her current 2 qualifying polls, so will have another 4-5 weeks to get 2% in just two more polls to qualify for the Oct debate.

Assuming of course that the media outlets which sponsor such approved polls arrange to stop not polling and actually conduct polls in the next month or so.